I am near death every minute of every day and I’ve never had a NDE. What gives?

[Bruce David:]Not near enough, evidently.

Keep trying, Mung! Someday you will be enlightened.

--------------...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

F/N: In short onlookers, this time, someone is going to go down. For instance, a watershed has been crossed in our civilisation with the homosexualist factionist challenge to marriage, and it is going to be either justice rooted in the natural moral law anchored in creation order — and contrast here on “my genes made me do it” — or tyranny in one form or another. No compromise is possible, and I assure you, this is a hill that people will stand and die on; quite literally. It is “to the lions” time again. That is what the factionists have now so foolishly or even so arrogantly let loose in our civilisation. (Cf a case in point here, with Mr Smith’s foolish and arrogantly disrespectful and potentially job-destroying challenge to and harassment of a Chick-fil-A worker, Rachel.) KF

Gordon you arrogant pussy. You're just a bag of wind with no substance and no spine. You're all talk.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

F/N: In short onlookers, this time, someone is going to go down. For instance, a watershed has been crossed in our civilisation with the homosexualist factionist challenge to marriage, and it is going to be either justice rooted in the natural moral law anchored in creation order — and contrast here on “my genes made me do it” — or tyranny in one form or another. No compromise is possible, and I assure you, this is a hill that people will stand and die on; quite literally. It is “to the lions” time again. That is what the factionists have now so foolishly or even so arrogantly let loose in our civilisation. (Cf a case in point here, with Mr Smith’s foolish and arrogantly disrespectful and potentially job-destroying challenge to and harassment of a Chick-fil-A worker, Rachel.) KF

Gordon you arrogant pussy. You're just a bag of wind with no substance and no spine. You're all talk.

Gordon, if you had been born 100 years ago I am certain you would be ranting against women being given the vote, raving about how society would collapse etc. with footnotes ...

--------------...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

NOTICE: A few corrective remarks for some hostile scrutinisers from Anti Evo etc.

I have noticed that the usual hostile scrutinisers at some objector sites are back on their Saul Alinsky, dismissive mockery and well-poisoning tactics.

.....

I strongly suggest, too, that such need to check a good legal dictionary before presuming ignorance on the part of design thinkers, and that they need to acquaint themselves with current legal trends before spouting off their ill-informed contempt.

"A good legal dictionary" is a hyperlink. I thought it was going to be to libel. Nope. Sodomy. And um....the minimum legal trend on that almost everywhere but Uganda is that people have a fundamental right to privacy. It is even right there in your link, KF.

Comments off.

KF-get a grip. You aren't a Christian martyr. You aren't in the vanguard winning the good fight against the scary gay. You're an individual on one silly site, espousing some very provincial views, threatening Americans to give up free speech and privacy rights. No thanks.

F/N: In short onlookers, this time, someone is going to go down. For instance, a watershed has been crossed in our civilisation with the homosexualist factionist challenge to marriage, and it is going to be either justice rooted in the natural moral law anchored in creation order — and contrast here on “my genes made me do it” — or tyranny in one form or another. No compromise is possible, and I assure you, this is a hill that people will stand and die on; quite literally. It is “to the lions” time again. That is what the factionists have now so foolishly or even so arrogantly let loose in our civilisation. (Cf a case in point here, with Mr Smith’s foolish and arrogantly disrespectful and potentially job-destroying challenge to and harassment of a Chick-fil-A worker, Rachel.) KF

Gordon you arrogant pussy. You're just a bag of wind with no substance and no spine. You're all talk.

Gordon, if you had been born 100 years ago I am certain you would be ranting against women being given the vote, raving about how society would collapse etc. with footnotes ...

This raises some interesting questions. Apparently gay marriage is a hill, quite literally. It must be quite tall and dangerous, as people are at risk of dying if they stand on it. And it has lions.

So, Gordon, where is Mount Gay Marriage? Despite the recent happy developments in Washington, I'm pretty sure it's not in the Cascades, and anyway we don't have any lions, unless we count cougars.

Perhaps "Soufriere Hills" translates to "Gay Marriage" in Gordonese. Are there any big cats in Montserrat?

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

NOTICE: A few corrective remarks for some hostile scrutinisers from Anti Evo etc.

I have noticed that the usual hostile scrutinisers at some objector sites are back on their Saul Alinsky, dismissive mockery and well-poisoning tactics.

.....

I strongly suggest, too, that such need to check a good legal dictionary before presuming ignorance on the part of design thinkers, and that they need to acquaint themselves with current legal trends before spouting off their ill-informed contempt.

"A good legal dictionary" is a hyperlink. I thought it was going to be to libel. Nope. Sodomy. And um....the minimum legal trend on that almost everywhere but Uganda is that people have a fundamental right to privacy. It is even right there in your link, KF.

Comments off.

KF-get a grip. You aren't a Christian martyr. You aren't in the vanguard winning the good fight against the scary gay. You're an individual on one silly site, espousing some very provincial views, threatening Americans to give up free speech and privacy rights. No thanks.

A wild speculation: He meant to link to "libel" but saved the link of the topic he was drooling overdisgustedly researching earlier.

NOTICE: A few corrective remarks for some hostile scrutinisers from Anti Evo etc.

I have noticed that the usual hostile scrutinisers at some objector sites are back on their Saul Alinsky, dismissive mockery and well-poisoning tactics.

.....

I strongly suggest, too, that such need to check a good legal dictionary before presuming ignorance on the part of design thinkers, and that they need to acquaint themselves with current legal trends before spouting off their ill-informed contempt.

"A good legal dictionary" is a hyperlink. I thought it was going to be to libel. Nope. Sodomy. And um....the minimum legal trend on that almost everywhere but Uganda is that people have a fundamental right to privacy. It is even right there in your link, KF.

Comments off.

KF-get a grip. You aren't a Christian martyr. You aren't in the vanguard winning the good fight against the scary gay. You're an individual on one silly site, espousing some very provincial views, threatening Americans to give up free speech and privacy rights. No thanks.

Notice that he said "design thinkers". There are SO many things wrong with that. For one example, what does sodomy or gay marriage have to do with "design thinkers" or the allegedly 'scientific inference of intelligent design'?

"I add that I am a lot less than comfortable with someone based in one country seeking to directly influence the course of the politics in another country..."

Yet he CONSTANTLY seeks to directly influence the course of politics in the USA and other countries that he doesn't live in. Hey gordo, since you don't live in the USA and have never lived in the USA, shut the fuck up about the USA and anywhere else other than the insignificant little island you live on.

Hey gordo, do you remember typing this:

"2nd paragraph of the 1776 US DOI, which asserts that it is self-evidently true that "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

Well, guess what gordo? People in the USA obviously have the unalienable right to pursue happiness, which includes having sex with anyone they choose who is of legal age and willing, no matter which gender they are. Get over it. Get used to it. Attitudes are changing and so are laws and there's NOTHING you can do about it besides your incessant whining.

It's also obvious that you, gordo, were never 'endowed' with anything other than a totally toxic personality.

And speaking of legal stuff, you dickless windbag, when are you going to sue me for 'slander' or show up at my door with Deputy Fife of the Royal Montserrat Police Service at your side holding an arrest warrant with my name on it? Be sure to remind Deputy Fife to bring his bullet.

I suppose they have not liked the situation where in recent weeks we have had some useful and reasonably civil exchanges here at UD under living room rules, giving the lie to their drumbeat accusations of censorship.

NOTICE: A few corrective remarks for some hostile scrutinisers from Anti Evo etc.

I have noticed that the usual hostile scrutinisers at some objector sites are back on their Saul Alinsky, dismissive mockery and well-poisoning tactics.

.....

I strongly suggest, too, that such need to check a good legal dictionary before presuming ignorance on the part of design thinkers, and that they need to acquaint themselves with current legal trends before spouting off their ill-informed contempt.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Hey Gord:

BLOW ME

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

NOTICE: A few corrective remarks for some hostile scrutinisers from Anti Evo etc.

I have noticed that the usual hostile scrutinisers at some objector sites are back on their Saul Alinsky,dismissive mockery and well-poisoning tactics.

.....

I strongly suggest, too, that such need to check a good legal dictionary before presuming ignorance on the part of design thinkers, and that they need to acquaint themselves with current legal trends before spouting off their ill-informed contempt.

-- KairosFocus in UD

Quote

This is the CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER...it is my responsibility to enforce all the laws that haven't been passed yet. It is also my responsibility to alert each and every one of you to the potential consequences of various ordinary everyday activities you might be performing which could eventually lead to *The Death Penalty* (or affect your parents' credit rating).

I suppose they have not liked the situation where in recent weeks we have had some useful and reasonably civil exchanges here at UD under living room rules, giving the lie to their drumbeat accusations of censorship.

This couldn't possibly be due to your extensively discussing Lizzie's blog because your lot had run out of topics that could maintain some scientific pretense and were reduced to discussions about "How To Go To Heaven"?

I haven't bothered reading the whole Reply to Dr Dawkins thread, and I don't think I align with some of Bruce David's views (a bit new agey for me), but hell, he deserves credit for eliciting a response like this from KF:

Quote

BD: Please, face the serious implications of what you have been saying, before it has an unspeakable price tag. KF

I haven't bothered reading the whole Reply to Dr Dawkins thread, and I don't think I align with some of Bruce David's views (a bit new agey for me), but hell, he deserves credit for eliciting a response like this from KF:

Quote

BD: Please, face the serious implications of what you have been saying, before it has an unspeakable price tag. KF

I haven't bothered reading the whole Reply to Dr Dawkins thread, and I don't think I align with some of Bruce David's views (a bit new agey for me), but hell, he deserves credit for eliciting a response like this from KF:

Quote

BD: Please, face the serious implications of what you have been saying, before it has an unspeakable price tag. KF

I haven't bothered reading the whole Reply to Dr Dawkins thread, and I don't think I align with some of Bruce David's views (a bit new agey for me), but hell, he deserves credit for eliciting a response like this from KF:

Quote

BD: Please, face the serious implications of what you have been saying, before it has an unspeakable price tag. KF

Five of the best from Mr. Leathers, followed by "comforting" afterward.

Then, (dramatic chord) bannitization!!!

Yawn.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

I haven't bothered reading the whole Reply to Dr Dawkins thread, and I don't think I align with some of Bruce David's views (a bit new agey for me), but hell, he deserves credit for eliciting a response like this from KF:

Quote

BD: Please, face the serious implications of what you have been saying, before it has an unspeakable price tag. KF

NOTICE: A few corrective remarks for some hostile scrutinisers from Anti Evo etc.

I have noticed that the usual hostile scrutinisers at some objector sites are back on their Saul Alinsky, dismissive mockery and well-poisoning tactics.

.....

I strongly suggest, too, that such need to check a good legal dictionary before presuming ignorance on the part of design thinkers, and that they need to acquaint themselves with current legal trends before spouting off their ill-informed contempt.

"A good legal dictionary" is a hyperlink. I thought it was going to be to libel. Nope. Sodomy. And um....the minimum legal trend on that almost everywhere but Uganda is that people have a fundamental right to privacy. It is even right there in your link, KF.

Comments off.

KF-get a grip. You aren't a Christian martyr. You aren't in the vanguard winning the good fight against the scary gay. You're an individual on one silly site, espousing some very provincial views, threatening Americans to give up free speech and privacy rights. No thanks.

<snikker> ...provincial views.

If KF only knew.

Now he'll be walking from his front verandah over to that coffee shop by the beach where he knows the Commissioner <snikker> of Police gets his breakfast to complain.

NOTICE: A few corrective remarks for some hostile scrutinisers from Anti Evo etc.

I have noticed that the usual hostile scrutinisers at some objector sites are back on their Saul Alinsky, dismissive mockery and well-poisoning tactics.

.....

I strongly suggest, too, that such need to check a good legal dictionary before presuming ignorance on the part of design thinkers, and that they need to acquaint themselves with current legal trends before spouting off their ill-informed contempt.

"A good legal dictionary" is a hyperlink. I thought it was going to be to libel. Nope. Sodomy. And um....the minimum legal trend on that almost everywhere but Uganda is that people have a fundamental right to privacy. It is even right there in your link, KF.

Comments off.

KF-get a grip. You aren't a Christian martyr. You aren't in the vanguard winning the good fight against the scary gay. You're an individual on one silly site, espousing some very provincial views, threatening Americans to give up free speech and privacy rights. No thanks.

<snikker> ...provincial views.

If KF only knew.

Now he'll be walking from his front verandah over to that coffee shop by the beach where he knows the Commissioner <snikker> of Police gets his breakfast to complain; and while he's there, he checks on those 10-scoring girls and tries the rubber hose for size .

--------------...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

Your only hope is that the world ends in a month. That is the only way your position will go out on top…

Waterloo by January 1st!

The Rupture!

--------------...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

I suppose they have not liked the situation where in recent weeks we have had some useful and reasonably civil exchanges here at UD under living room rules, giving the lie to their drumbeat accusations of censorship.

This couldn't possibly be due to your extensively discussing Lizzie's blog because your lot had run out of topics that could maintain some scientific pretense and were reduced to discussions about "How To Go To Heaven"?

No, perish the thought!

Indeed. The threads on Lizzie's blog are keeping UD off of life support. That's not a good thing.

My personal view is that if the UD denizens aren't willing to come out of their padded echo chamber then the reality based community shouldn't engage them seriously. We shouldn't be sanctioning, even implicitly, the gross lack of respect for the free exchange of ideas exemplified by the censors at UD.